South Africa has seen regions that once resembled a green carpet of grasses turn into cracked soil, constant dust, and dry streams in just a few decades. Pastures that supported antelopes, zebras, and gazelles began to collapse, and desertification accelerated as if it were inevitable.
The turning point came when the country decided to reintroduce cheetahs to the savannas. The return of the predator changed the behavior of the herbivores. reduced overgrazing and triggered A rapid and measurable recovery of vegetation, soil, and water is surprising scientists and farmers.
Savannas that were once green have turned to barren wasteland.
Before its collapse, South Africa boasted some of the most productive savannas on the continent.
Producers are reducing wolf attacks on livestock by using electric fences, flaxy fences, guard dogs, human surveillance, carcass disposal, and pasture rotation, avoiding deaths, legal conflicts, and losses in the field without killing predators, thus protecting rural ecosystems and promoting sustainable productivity.
Slovakia authorizes the culling of 74 wolves despite a lack of scientific basis; environmentalists denounce hunting pressure, failure to protect the species, and warn that the measure will not reduce attacks on livestock, may affect protected areas, and could even conflict with European Union environmental regulations.
A forgotten detail from prehistory that became a scientific discovery: a wolf's last meal revealed the complete genome of an Ice Age giant.
Elephants in Kenya are learning to evade electric fences, using their own tusks as tools, destroying crops, and forcing authorities to adopt an extreme measure that reduces attacks but raises unprecedented ethical, social, and ecological dilemmas.
The landscape was marked by herds of cattle scattered as far as the eye could see, and by perennial grasses capable of retaining moisture, protecting the soil, and sustaining an entire ecological chain.
Triandra theme
Themeda triandra, cited as one of the dominant grasses, appeared as a velvety green carpet, reaching knee height in many areas and covering hundreds of square kilometers in regions such as Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal, and the Northwest.
The problem is that, in just a few decades, this scenario began to crumble. Since the end of the 20th century, the grass has been disappearing and the soil has become exposed.
The result was a classic process of degradation: the land lost its protection, the wind began to carry away the fertile layer, and red dust storms became part of the routine.
In critical areas, patches have formed that are described as dead soil, dry and hard as stone, the type of surface that does not absorb water and does not easily support roots.
The degradation wasn't limited to what was visible. Streams like Mcuzé and Laticulu began to dry up during the dry season and, in some places, dried up completely, leaving only the riverbed exposed.
At the same time, the water table fell to its lowest point in many decades, intensifying the feeling that the savannas were heading down a path of no return.
Desertification has accelerated, and vegetation has given way to invasive species.
perennial grasses
As perennial grasses declined, invasive shrubs, which previously occupied a smaller part of the ecosystem, advanced en masse.
Records indicate increases exceeding 200%, and reaching 300% in some locations.
This created an ecological suffocation effect: the invaders swallowed up the vital space of the native grasses, while the increasingly exposed soil became hotter, harder, and drier.
From that point on, degradation began to function as a feedback loop. The less grass, the less infiltration.
The less infiltration, the more surface runoff. The more runoff, the more erosion. And the more erosion, the more difficult natural regeneration becomes.
The consequence was felt directly in the fields. Herds became thinner, the soil became dustier, and the rains fell without fulfilling their role of recovery, because the water did not penetrate. Instead, it ran off the surface, carrying away what remained of the fertile layer.
The economic impact hit farmers and communities hard.
In 1998, the South African Ministry of Agriculture published a report described as shocking, attributing losses exceeding $1,2 billion to pasture degradation in just one decade.
For farmers, this meant lost productivity, increased vulnerability to drought, and a reduced capacity to support livestock and other animals in areas that were once considered among the best in the country.
This data is important because it shows that desertification was not just a distant environmental issue. It has become a real, measurable economic problem, capable of changing the financial stability of entire regions.
The surprising diagnosis: it wasn't just the weather, nor was it just direct human action.
When experts were sent to investigate in the late 1990s, the central conclusion was unexpected: the climate was not the main culprit, and humans, while relevant on other fronts, were not the dominant factor in that specific mechanism either.
The real problem was related to the disappearance of a predator.
An entire ecosystem collapsed because a single fundamental link disappeared. And that link was the cheetah.
This conclusion completely changes the interpretation of what was happening. Instead of being seen as simply a case of drought or inappropriate land use, the collapse is now understood as a breakdown of ecological balance, of the kind that generates domino effects.
EXTRAORDINARY CHEETAHS OF THE KALAHARI
Why the absence of cheetahs disrupted everything.
Cheetahs, when present, don't just act as hunters that reduce populations. Their role also involves altering the behavior of herbivores.
Without predators, antelopes may remain for too long in sensitive areas, consuming young shoots and low grass down to the roots.
And that's exactly what happened. Populations of antelope, especially impalas and springboks, grew uncontrollably.
In areas where cheetahs have disappeared, the density of impalas has increased from about four individuals per square kilometer to somewhere between 10 and 12. In the case of springboks, the density has risen from two to somewhere between six and eight.
This increase was critical because these herbivores are selective. They concentrate on young shoots and low grass, precisely the parts that are most important for retaining moisture, protecting the soil, and initiating regeneration cycles.
By repeatedly consuming the most vital components of the vegetation, they prevent the grasses from recovering.
The attack also targeted waterways. They consumed the vegetation along the streams and eliminated the protective layer that helps retain water in the soil.
With less riparian vegetation, the streams dried up faster.
Soil compaction: the invisible enemy that turned rain into erosion.
In addition to the removal of vegetation cover, the excess of herbivores compacted the soil. A cited study, conducted in 2003 in KwaZulu-Natal, recorded an increase in compaction between 15% and 30%.
The effect of this is devastating: compaction reduces the water infiltration capacity by 40% to 60%.
In other words, even when it rained, the water didn't penetrate the ground as it should. It ran off, carrying particles and washing away the thin layer of fertile soil that forms the basis of all grassland vegetation.
From that point on, the rain ceases to be a restorative event and becomes an erosion event.
The soil becomes harder, hotter, and drier, making natural regeneration even more difficult.
Attempts to fix the cheetah-free savanna have failed in a chain reaction.
When the problem became evident, the reaction was to attempt direct interventions. The most common was replanting grass. Tons of seeds were scattered in the degraded areas, but the soil had already lost its biological structure.
The bacteria were exhausted, the humus layer had disappeared, and the surface was hard and cracked. The failure rate reached 70%. And even where it sprouted, it disappeared after weeks of intense sun.
Then came artificial irrigation. The logic was simple: provide moisture and keep the vegetation alive. But the compacted soil did not absorb it.
The water ran off, carrying away what little fertile soil remained. The cost was high, between 1.000 and 3.000 per hectare, and the effect was minimal, with the added risk of accelerating erosion.
Next, barriers against the wind appeared, made of rows of wood and screens.
But the strong winds of the high-altitude savannas rendered these structures ineffective. The dust continued to be carried away and the soil kept disappearing.
Finally, the most controversial measure: reducing antelope populations through controlled hunting. Some reserves were eliminating between 300 and 500 impalas per year.
Even so, the recovery was not consolidating.
The central point is that all these attempts were working against symptoms, not against the underlying ecological cause.
The turning point of 2003: reintroducing cheetahs as a scientific strategy.
In 2003, South Africa made a decision considered almost unthinkable: to reintroduce cheetahs to the savannas.
The initiative was treated as a science-based experiment, centered on a key mechanism: the ecology of fear.
The logic was as follows: when a predator is present, antelopes cannot stay in the same pasture for very long, consuming the vegetation down to the root.
They move around more, disperse, and avoid vulnerable areas, creating breathing spaces for vegetation to regenerate.
To make this possible, the country mobilized a broad network. The Cheetah Meta Population Project, SANParks, and more than 60 private reserves, including Finda, Pilanesberg, and Belgevonden, were cited.
The goal was not just to release cheetahs, but to rebuild a connected metapopulation, strong enough to avoid isolation, diverse enough to reduce inbreeding, and stable enough to restore the predator's ecological role.
What has changed with cheetahs: behavior, not just predation.
The transformation didn't depend solely on direct hunting. The most powerful factor was the behavioral effect.
Data collected by GPS collars between 2004 and 2008 showed that the time impalas spent in a single location decreased between 50% and 80%.
This means they could no longer completely clear areas that were on the verge of degradation. In other words, the cheetahs redistributed the impact of grazing across the entire territory.
Um A study in KwaZulu-Natal indicated that the presence of cheetahs can reduce overgrazing by up to 70%, even when no prey is killed.
This detail is crucial because it dismantles the simplistic idea that the predator "solves" the problem simply by killing. It solves the problem by reorganizing the rhythm of the ecosystem.
Recovery appeared both above and below ground.
Between 2018 and 2022, researchers recorded that vegetation cover in areas such as Limpopo, Finda, and Pilanesberg increased between 20% and 40%, precisely in places that were previously predicted to become desert in less than a decade.
The most impressive finding was the speed. The Belgevonden report, published in 2021, noted that the process should take 10 to 15 years, but results appeared in less than four years.
Satellite images have shown that semi-arid areas have stopped expanding. In some places, the boundary of dry land has receded and new shades of green have emerged.
The ecological response spread.
Insectivorous birds increased between 30% and 50%. Small antelopes that had been absent for almost a decade reappeared in camera traps.
Small predators, such as cerval and caracal, returned, attracted by the greater availability of prey.
In Finda, the recovery was so intense that the area was reclassified from degraded savanna to recovering savanna in just four years.
Below the surface, soil analyses indicated an increase in organic matter content between 12% and 19%. Water retention capacity increased by almost 25%. Soil bacteria returned faster than expected.
And even without increased rainfall, the water began to infiltrate deeper, reducing surface runoff and stabilizing streams that had been dry for years.
Why cheetahs have less social impact than you might think.
The cheetah has a unique ecological and behavioral profile. It is described as the fastest land animal on the planet, with speeds between 93 and 112 km/h and acceleration from 0 to 80 km/h in just three seconds. This characteristic, however, does not make it a predator of extensive impact.
He is a sprinter, not an endurance hunter. He only maintains high speeds for a few hundred meters and tends to abandon the hunt if his body temperature exceeds a critical limit.
It hunts alone, is active during the day, consumes its prey completely, and does not hide carcasses, which reduces the attraction of scavengers.
For farmers, this was described as a key advantage: Zero human deaths recorded in South Africa. and an attack rate on domestic animals of less than 2%.
Furthermore, the diet is centered on species such as impalas and springboks, precisely those that exert the greatest pressure on pastures.
An adult cheetah needs, on average, an impala every two or three days. But its impact goes beyond that number, because its continuous presence alters the movement patterns of herbivores.
How cheetahs nearly disappeared and why that made everything worse.
The story of the cheetah's disappearance involves human interference.
Starting in the 1950s, there was a large-scale expansion of livestock farming, fragmenting previously continuous pastures into private farms. Between 20% and 30% of the natural habitat was converted for raising cattle, sheep, and goats.
The fragmentation was accompanied by a dense network of fences. The cited density is 1,7 to 2,1 km of fencing per square kilometer, considered extremely high.
For humans, this controls herds. For cheetahs, it became a prison: they couldn't run long distances, they couldn't migrate when prey became scarce, and they couldn't find other individuals to reproduce with.
To make matters worse, the cheetah's spotted coat is similar to that of the leopard, which is known for attacking livestock. A 1991 survey cited that 70% of rural landowners admitted to shooting cheetahs "just to be safe."
Wire traps set up to catch hyenas also caught cheetahs. At high speed, simply getting a paw caught in the wire is enough to kill them.
Many died, and the survivors were left isolated, unable to reproduce. In some regions, populations fell to 10 to 15 individuals, increasing inbreeding, weakening offspring, and reducing genetic diversity.
The economic impact: tourism and a changing model for farmers.
With the return of the cheetahs and the recovery of the ecosystem, the local economy also changed. In just a few years, the number of tourists in areas with cheetahs increased between 40% and 60%.
The interest has shifted from just the "classic great predator" to include the regeneration process itself.
For rural landowners, this opened up a new model. Some stopped depending solely on livestock farming, which is vulnerable to drought and market fluctuations, and started profiting from safaris and conservation.
It has been described that many have started earning two to three times more than with traditional livestock farming, through long-term contracts with international operators.
Conflict with farmers also decreased. In regions where attacks on livestock were feared, conflicts fell by 70% to 90% with the use of GPS collars, rapid compensation systems, and community education. Many producers realized, by viewing routes on the map, that cheetahs avoided inhabited areas.
What still threatens recovery: traps, inbreeding, and soil boundaries.
Even with progress, challenges remain. Illegal hunting continues to be a problem. In one region mentioned, in 2019, more than 230 wire traps were removed in just one month.
These traps aren't always designed for cheetahs, but they frequently catch them.
Another challenge is inbreeding. Small reserves, with restricted populations, cannot sustain healthy gene flow on their own.
There were periods when one cited reserve recorded up to 15% malformations in offspring due to mating between relatives.
To address this, a planned network for transferring cheetahs between protected areas emerged, with relocations aimed at renewing the gene pool.
Between 2011 and 2021, more than 100 individuals were relocated.
The climate also plays a role. Prolonged droughts slow recovery. In areas where there is little natural prey, reintroductions may fail and require the relocation of animals.
Furthermore, not every place responds the same way.
There are cases where recovery has been limited because the soil was severely compacted by decades of intensive grazing. This reinforces the point: cheetahs change the system, but there are limits when the biological basis has already been profoundly destroyed.
What South Africa has shown about desertification: the missing link decides the fate of the land.
The South African experience sent a clear message: ecosystems do not function without essential links. When a predator disappears, the imbalance spreads like dominoes, from antelope populations to pastures, then to the soil, and finally to people's livelihoods.
When the cheetahs returned, the repairs began to happen on their own, without concrete, water pumps, or expensive construction.
Nature has regained its rhythm.
And now for the final provocation: if one predator managed to halt desertification and make savannas green again, how many... Other ecosystems around the world are collapsing. Just because the correct link hasn't been restored yet?
